Other Translations: Deutsch
From: , ,
Sutta NipÄta 4.3 Sutta NipÄta 4.3Anthology of Discourses 4.3
Duį¹į¹haį¹į¹hakasutta The Corrupted OctetEight on Malice
Vadanti ve duį¹į¹hamanÄpi eke, There are some who dispute corrupted at heart,Some speak with malicious intent, Duį¹į¹hamana, or more commonly paduį¹į¹hamana, means āmaliceā not ācorruptionā, as is found through the suttas and confirmed by the Niddesa.
Athopi ve saccamanÄ vadanti; and those who dispute their hearts set on truth,while others speak set on truth.
VÄdaƱca jÄtaį¹ muni no upeti, but a sage doesnāt enter a dispute thatās arisen,When disputes come up a sage does not get involved, This idea is expressed throughout the Suttas, for example DN 1:1.18.1, SN 22.3, SN 56.9, AN 7.61:11.2.
TasmÄ munÄ« natthi khilo kuhiƱci. which is why he has no rigidity anywhere at all.which is why theyāve no barrenness at all.
SakaƱhi diį¹į¹hiį¹ kathamaccayeyya, Now, how would one overcome his own views?How can you transcend your own view
ChandÄnunÄ«to ruciyÄ niviį¹į¹ho; led on by desire, entrenched in his likes,when youāre led by preference, dogmatic in belief? Bodhi, Norman, and ĆÄį¹adÄ«pa all render chanda as ādesireā, and that is certainly the sense of chandÄnunÄ«to at SN 35.94:6.4. Here, however, Niddesa glosses with synonyms for āviewā and this seems like a more plausible sense. Note too the sense of niviį¹į¹ha as ādogmaticā, which recurs through the Aį¹į¹hakavagga (cp. abhinivesa).
Sayaį¹ samattÄni pakubbamÄno, forming his own conclusions,Inventing your own undertakings, SamattÄni is regularly used of vows āundertakenā, and given the following verse this is surely the meaning here, contra Niddesa and commentary. See Snp 4.4:5.1, where samÄdÄya is used in the same sense.
YathÄ hi jÄneyya tathÄ vadeyya. Heād dispute in line with the way that he knows.youād speak according to your notion. Here we find a sense of jÄnÄti that doesnāt fit the English idea of āknowledgeā as ātrue beliefā. The idea is that they speak from their own (limited and opinionated) ideas. Itās not as pejorative as āopinionā nor as solid as āknowledgeā, so I render as ānotionā. We find this usage commonly in the final two chapters of Snp.
Yo attano sÄ«lavatÄni jantu, Whoever, of his own practices, habits,Some personages, unasked, tell others
AnÄnupuį¹į¹hova paresa pÄva; boasts to others, unasked,of their own precepts and vows.
Anariyadhammaį¹ kusalÄ tamÄhu, is, say the skilled, ignoble by natureāThey have an ignoble nature, say those who are skilled,
Yo ÄtumÄnaį¹ sayameva pÄva. he who speaks of himself of his own accord.since they speak on themselves of their own accord.
Santo ca bhikkhu abhinibbutatto, But a monk at peace, fully unbound in himself,A mendicant, peaceful, quenched,
Itihanti sÄ«lesu akatthamÄno; not boasting of his habits āāThatās how I amāānever boasts āthus am Iā of their precepts.
Tamariyadhammaį¹ kusalÄ vadanti, he, say the skilled, is noble by natureāThey have a noble nature, say those who are skilled,
YassussadÄ natthi kuhiƱci loke. he with no vanity anywhere in the world.who have no pretensions about anything in the world. Ussada, here rendered āpretensionā, is a poetic term with the literal sense of āswellingā. In this chapter it has a close connection with āprideā (Snp 4.10:8.4, Snp 4.14:6.4; cf. the English sense of pride as āprotuberanceā), although this connection is less obvious elsewhere (Snp 3.6:14.4, Iti 97:8.4, and Ud 1.4:2.1 = Kd 1:2.3.6). Its absence is a sign of a true brahmin (MN 98:11.19, Dhp 400:2, Snp 3.9:36.1). The Niddesa does not link it with pride especially, rather explaining it as sevenfold: greed, hate, delusion, conceit, views, corruptions, and deeds (Mnd 10:105.4).
PakappitÄ saį¹
khatÄ yassa dhammÄ, One whose doctrines, fabricated, formed,For one who formulates and creates teachings,
PurakkhatÄ santi avÄ«vadÄtÄ; given preference, arenāt cleanāand promotes them despite their defects,
Yadattani passati Änisaį¹saį¹, when he sees it to his own advantageāif they see an advantage for themselves,
Taį¹ nissito kuppapaį¹iccasantiį¹. relies on a peace dependent on the provoked.Kuppa-paį¹icca. Underlying many of the Canonās explanations of physical and mental phenomena is the theory of dhÄtuāelement or propertyāin which phenomena are said to happen because an underlying dhÄtu, which normally exists in a potential form, is provoked into being actualized. Fires, for instance, come from the provocation of the fire dhÄtu that is everywhere present. When the provocation ends, the dhÄtu returns to its potential state, and the phenomenon ends. Thus any phenomenon that depends on provocation is by nature inconstant and unreliable. This is one of the reasons why the experience of full release is said to be unprovoked, because it does not depend on the provocation of a dhÄtu, and so is free from the potential for change. For more on this point, see MN 29, note 3.they become dependent on that, relying on unstable peace.
Diį¹į¹hÄ«nivesÄ na hi svÄtivattÄ, Because entrenchments in views arenāt easily overcomeEntrenchments: a rendering of the Pali term, nivesana, which can also be translated as dwelling (see Sn 1:12, note 5), abode, situation, home, or establishment. Nd II illustrates the meaning of āentrenchments in viewsā with these ten views (found, in various forms, in DN 9, MN 72, and AN 10:93): āThe cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.ā āThe cosmos is not eternalā¦ā āThe cosmos is finiteā¦ā āThe cosmos is infiniteā¦ā āThe soul & the body are the sameā¦ā āThe soul is one thing & the body anotherā¦ā āAfter death a TathÄgata existsā¦ā āAfter death a TathÄgata does not existā¦ā āAfter death a TathÄgata both does & does not existā¦ā āAfter death a TathÄgata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.āItās not easy to get over dogmatic views
Dhammesu niccheyya samuggahÄ«taį¹; when considering whatās grasped among doctrines,adopted after judging among the teachings.
TasmÄ naro tesu nivesanesu, thatās why a person, in light of these very entrenchments,Thatās why, among all these dogmas, a person
NirassatÄ« ÄdiyatÄ« ca dhammaį¹. embraces or rejects a doctrine.ditches one teaching and takes up another.
Dhonassa hi natthi kuhiƱci loke, Now, one who is cleansed has nothing anywhere in the worldāNd I: Cleansed through discernment. See also the explanation of āwashedā in Sn 3:6.The cleansed one has no formulated view
PakappitÄ diį¹į¹hi bhavÄbhavesu; no theorized view about states of becoming or not-,at all in the world about the different realms.
MÄyaƱca mÄnaƱca pahÄya dhono, Having abandoned conceit & illusion,Nd I explains a variety of ways of understanding the word āconceit,ā the most comprehensive being a list of nine kinds of conceit: viewing people better than oneself as worse than oneself, on a par with oneself, or better than oneself; viewing people on a par with oneself as worse than oneself, on a par with oneself, or better than oneself; viewing people worse than oneself as worse than oneself, on a par with oneself, or better than oneself. In other words, the truth of the view is not the issue here; the issue is the tendency to compare oneself with others. See AN 6:49. See also AN 4:159.Having given up illusion and conceit,
Sa kena gaccheyya anÅ«payo so. by what means would he go? He isnāt involved,Nd I: āBy what means would he goā to any destination in any state of becoming.by what path would they go? They are not involved.
Upayo hi dhammesu upeti vÄdaį¹, for one whoās involved enters into disputes over doctrines.For one who gets involved is embroiled in disputes about teachingsā
AnÅ«payaį¹ kena kathaį¹ vadeyya; But howāin connection with whatāwould you argue with one uninvolved?āIn connection with whatā: a rendering of the instrumental case that attempts to cover several of its meanings, in particular āby what meansā and āin terms of what.ā For a discussion of the use of the instrumental case in the Aį¹į¹haka Vagga, see Sn 4:9, note 4.but how to dispute with the uninvolved? About what?
AttÄ nirattÄ na hi tassa atthi, He has nothing embraced or rejected,This reading follows the Thai, Sri Lankan, and PTS editions: attaį¹ nirattaį¹. The Burmese edition reads, attÄ nirattÄ: āHe has no self, nor whatās opposed to self.ā As GD points out in its notes to the translation of this verse, the first reading is probably the correct one, as it relates to the poemās earlier reference to a person embracing or rejecting a doctrine. The fact that an awakened person is free from both embracing and rejecting is a recurring theme in this vagga and the next; the confusion at present in the various recensions as to whether similar lines should read attaį¹/nirattaį¹ or attÄ/nirattÄ is a recurring textual theme as well. (See Sn 4:4, note 4; Sn 4:10, note 7; Sn 4:14, note 2.)For picking up and putting down is not what they do; The problem addressed is one who is picking up one thing after another. Itās therefore best to translate atta in an active sense, per Niddesa: gahaį¹aį¹ muƱcanÄ samatikkanto. We find similar phrases describing the living arahant in such prose passages as SN 22.79:14.1.
Adhosi so diį¹į¹himidheva sabbanti. has sloughed off every view right hereāevery one.they have shaken off all views in this very life.
Duį¹į¹haį¹į¹hakasuttaį¹ tatiyaį¹. The Corrupted Octet, the third.vv. 780ā787. For a discussion of the conditions under which the Buddha would enter into a debate, see Skill in Questions, chapter 5. See also: MN 18; MN 22; MN 58; MN 72; AN 2:36.